[DubiousDan]

Jean Philippe :

To DubiousDan,

If you don't give a damn about what Capitalism is about, then you don't give a damn about the dynamics at play in the national debt. Unfortunately, this thread happens to be about considering these dynamics, or so is my understanding of it.

Me:
You are correct if you want the opinions of the priesthood. Yes, the understanding of the efficacy of prayer and the reading of entrails, and matters similar to that, require years of study. I was discussing the matter from the standpoint of the prudent man. Obviously, there is no place in contemporary economic theory for the prudent man as the condition of our nation will testify.
Considering the request at the start of the topic, I should have stayed out of the discussion. However, after you finish discussing borrowing your way to prosperity, you might take up solving the energy crises with perpetual motion machines.
Indeed I was a bit discourteous. I tend to irritate easily. This might make it a little clearer. Wo shi yugong.

By the way, what little Chinese I remember is Cantonese, not Pinyin, and I am completely out of the loop with Pinyin slang. However, lot’s of luck in Jiading.

[Jean-Philippe]

You are correct if you want the opinions of the priesthood

I think you're missing the point. The question is not about the opinions of the priesthood as such, but rather to understand how their mind work and when this priesthood is in charge of organizing our economic system, how this one is organised. It is to clarify the meaning of a public debt within the capitalist system. Personally, I feel comfortable discussing this matter even though I don't consider the capitalist assumptions to be correct. For instance, I think the capitalist insistence on growth for the sake of it, is unreasonable since it omits to consider the problematic of the human quality of this growth (and therefore makes no difference between a genuinely desirable activity and a non desirable one, since it accounts both mechanically in quantitative terms i.e. monetary flows), while I think this one ought to be analysed.

But to discuss the national debt in my own terms, that is, from outside the capitalist theory, would indeed be an ideological commitment from myself, which would not, I believe, clarifies much the internal articulation of the national debt (and that is basically what I meant by qualifying your stance as ideological, of if you prefer, as transposing the problem at an ideological level).
I would think a more productive way is to first clarify these internal articulations by pointing out their essential relationship with an ideology of growth, and in a second time (but I am not sure that it is something on topic here), possibly to criticize the ideology of growth with the consequence of questioning the adequacy of a large debt (which basically, without further control, tend to promote growth for the sake of it).
If you wish to fight Capitalism efficiently, I believe, along with Sun Zi, that it's important to know your enemy first, what it stands for and how it works.

To be clear then, it is not because I expose the logic at play in maintaining a national debt in a capitalist system, that I support either Capitalism or maintaining a public debt. Similarly, I am not a christian, but I can acknowledge and even expose(within the limit of my knowledge) the logic at play in the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

[TropicalK]

Jean, I'd agree with most of what you said if you replaced "capitalism" with "Keynesianism." The status quo has a marginal relationship with capitalism. Just squishing everything into "capitalism" is a gross oversimplification and misappropriation of terms.

[Dr House]

Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned and operated for a profit, so a Keynesian system would undeniably be capitalist. I'm afraid I haven't read Jean-Philippe's posts yet though, so I can't comment further.

[Le Rouge]

Indeed, hypothetically, there could be a form of capitalism where all the means of production are owned by the state and the profits are returned to investors / stockholders.

[Jean-Philippe]

TropicalK,

My aim in this discussion has merely been to discuss the existing system we are living in, I called it Capitalism because it often is called like this, now, I am well aware that some people have an ideal view of Capitalism, some will refer to Adam Smith, some other to Ricardo, other to Walras, other to Von Mises or Hayek, other to Keynes,...etc.; I am not here to argue which is wrong or right, I don't think this question even has a meaning, words don't exist outside of their usage, they don't belong to one author or to one ideology.
The capitalism I was designating therefore, is one with a monetary policy decided by central banks, a financial system where large amounts of money are transferred every second and whose importance within the "real economy" is not negligible anymore, one with anti-trust laws,...etc.

In this reality therefore, Dr House, I am not sure that the main goal of company is still profit, I would rather say it is growth, in that making a reasonable constant profit over the years is not enough anymore to maintain a company afloat today, rather one has to make profit that are larger than previous years, one has to grow, and this is even truer for a national economy, stagnation, long-term equilibrium is not an option, economic growth is the only path to sustainability in our society, or so it seems.

[Dr House]

Le Rouge, I think the distinction becomes murky when the state owns all the means of production.We can easily peg social democracies as capitalist because the government does not own any production, but rather consumes the majority of goods produced. There can be some confusion on that point because production stats generally rely on GDP, which is a stupid Keynesian invention neoliberals gobbled up whole for some weird reason.

[Le Rouge]

I agree it's a murky line but it's the economic model put up by post-WWII Western Europe and post-colonial Africa though not to the extent that all the means of production were nationalized.

[DubiousDan]

Jean-Philippe :

I think you're missing the point. The question is not about the opinions of the priesthood as such, but rather to understand how their mind work and when this priesthood is in charge of organizing our economic system, how this one is organised. It is to clarify the meaning of a public debt within the capitalist system. Personally, I feel comfortable discussing this matter even though I don't consider the capitalist assumptions to be correct. For instance, I think the capitalist insistence on growth for the sake of it, is unreasonable since it omits to consider the problematic of the human quality of this growth (and therefore makes no difference between a genuinely desirable activity and a non desirable one, since it accounts both mechanically in quantitative terms i.e. monetary flows), while I think this one ought to be analysed.

Me:
If you will examine the behavior of our priesthood, you will realize that it is not economics that is the relevant science, it is criminology. First of all, economic theory by itself is almost useless. If you are a tax accountant, accounting is the easy part, law is the hard part. Accounting principles are basic and close to the physical sciences in consistency. It is the shifting sands of law that the tax accountant must stay abreast. If he works for large firms or wealthy clients, he has to go beyond the frontiers of law. He must weigh penalties against the gain of violating law. He must calculate probabilities of detection as risk factors. Those who can do this well are heavily remunerated, however, for that remuneration, they are required to take reasonable risks. Just as in sport, in business, to win you must learn how to cheat properly. Unlike sport, occasionally, the penalties for cheating can be severe. However, that risk is part of the price of success. It is not a great risk, white collar crime does pay. The odds are in the criminals favor as long as he violates law for the company. Not so good if he violates law against the company.
Since law is so important in business, those who make law are part of the equation. The care and feeding of politicians is part of the art of big business. Again, this can require a little cheating here and there. You take the risks, you win, you make the big bucks.
Since politicians are involved, so is the media. After all, the politicians have to get elected, the right bills have to be passed and the suckers have to be set up. So again, another expense of big business is the media. Advertising is only the visible part, but it’s very important. That’s why its very important that the right people operate the media.
Today, the media isn’t enough, you need somebody to feed the media the right stuff. This requires propaganda machines, sometimes called think tanks, which take facts and turn them into lies. These lies are then turned over to the media to be fed to the public. This has become especially important since the rise of the Internet. You have to have the cities ready to be cited. After all, if there is an embarrassing statistic out there, it must be nullified. A little polish here, a little filing, a bit of trimming, and lo, a new statistic to counter the embarrassing statistic. All someone has to do is paste it in his argument and four fingers become five fingers.
Yes, and those ready made arguments are so convenient. No need to think, let a professional do it for you, and you too can be clever.
Now these are only a few of the factors in business. So really, why should I spend a great deal of time on something which is never used except as a rationale to conceal fraud. The right connections, cronyism, conspiracy, collusion, family, sex and graft, so many factors, so little time. In the end, economic theory is, if it is relevant at all, a tiny part of the picture.

[DubiousDan]

Dr. House :

Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned and operated for a profit, so a Keynesian system would undeniably be capitalist. I'm afraid I haven't read Jean-Philippe's posts yet though, so I can't comment further.

Me:
Profit being the goal, perhaps. It would seem that in practice, the companies in America function for the benefit of Management, by and large. The owners, which are usually shareholders, have little to say except to hold or sell. The shareholders board members are usually management stooges. Actually, more and more, it looks like the managers walk away with the money while the shareholders walk away somewhat bow legged.

[Jean-Philippe]

If you will examine the behavior of our priesthood, you will realize that it is not economics that is the relevant science, it is criminology. First of all, economic theory by itself is almost useless. If you are a tax accountant, accounting is the easy part, law is the hard part. Accounting principles are basic and close to the physical sciences in consistency. It is the shifting sands of law that the tax accountant must stay abreast. If he works for large firms or wealthy clients, he has to go beyond the frontiers of law. He must weigh penalties against the gain of violating law. He must calculate probabilities of detection as risk factors. Those who can do this well are heavily remunerated, however, for that remuneration, they are required to take reasonable risks. Just as in sport, in business, to win you must learn how to cheat properly. Unlike sport, occasionally, the penalties for cheating can be severe. However, that risk is part of the price of success. It is not a great risk, white collar crime does pay. The odds are in the criminals favor as long as he violates law for the company. Not so good if he violates law against the company.
Since law is so important in business, those who make law are part of the equation. The care and feeding of politicians is part of the art of big business. Again, this can require a little cheating here and there. You take the risks, you win, you make the big bucks.
Since politicians are involved, so is the media. After all, the politicians have to get elected, the right bills have to be passed and the suckers have to be set up. So again, another expense of big business is the media. Advertising is only the visible part, but it’s very important. That’s why its very important that the right people operate the media.
Today, the media isn’t enough, you need somebody to feed the media the right stuff. This requires propaganda machines, sometimes called think tanks, which take facts and turn them into lies. These lies are then turned over to the media to be fed to the public. This has become especially important since the rise of the Internet. You have to have the cities ready to be cited. After all, if there is an embarrassing statistic out there, it must be nullified. A little polish here, a little filing, a bit of trimming, and lo, a new statistic to counter the embarrassing statistic. All someone has to do is paste it in his argument and four fingers become five fingers.
Yes, and those ready made arguments are so convenient. No need to think, let a professional do it for you, and you too can be clever.
Now these are only a few of the factors in business. So really, why should I spend a great deal of time on something which is never used except as a rationale to conceal fraud. The right connections, cronyism, conspiracy, collusion, family, sex and graft, so many factors, so little time. In the end, economic theory is, if it is relevant at all, a tiny part of the picture.

Yes, this is an interesting remark and I completely agree with you on this point, of which I see the origin in the problematic of the separation of powers, and especially on how to ensure their independence.
But economic theory is not irrelevant to this matter, the lack of independence between the politic, the economic, the judiciary and the media find its source in economic theories, who do not, for instance acknowledge the economic power at all, this is particularly the case for libertarians, and more generally for the free-market fundamentalists. Crony capitalism is just a consequence of that: if the society does not acknowledge the power of the economic (which goes beyond the purely economic, because once an institution or an individual get power, it will use this power at his own discretion in any kind of domains), it won't acknowledge neither the ethical problems this power may raise nor their judiciary consequences.

But beyond that, I think the economy has tremendously changed in these last 50 years, and the place finance has taken, itself raises a number of original problems that are more complex than before, and more complex than what is commonly thought right now. It also makes the problem you mention much more acute than before, because millions of people can get deprived of their savings overnight. It furthermore puts the rest of the economy under tremendous pressure, and especially these parts of the economy that are safe from cronyism, it therefore becomes an incentive for them to become corrupted (good behavior is sanctioned, bad behavior is rewarded).
The picture is then a whole, very tightly intertwined, and no tiny part can be dismissed, we here discuss about non-linear dynamics, the traditional reductionist approach does not work that well, rather we are to consider it in systemic terms, and that means that powers should be carefully balanced (adding the economic power within the classical set of the legislative/executive/judiciary) and able to check each other from an independent point of view, in order to minimize the systemic risk for society as a whole that economic ideologies has come to create.

[DubiousDan]

Jean-Philippe :

But beyond that, I think the economy has tremendously changed in these last 50 years, and the place finance has taken, itself raises a number of original problems that are more complex than before, and more complex than what is commonly thought right now. It also makes the problem you mention much more acute than before, because millions of people can get deprived of their savings overnight. It furthermore puts the rest of the economy under tremendous pressure, and especially these parts of the economy that are safe from cronyism, it therefore becomes an incentive for them to become corrupted (good behavior is sanctioned, bad behavior is rewarded).

Me:
I’m not sure I understand everything in your argument. However, I think that the problem would be better addressed from a political than an economic perspective. I don’t think needlessly complex economic theories are required. I think we need simple workable tools, but in order for these tools to work, we need competent law. I believe law and its practice are the problem, not economic theory.
I am a classical Taoist. Not the kind you find telling fortunes on the street corner, the old, old school, before magic got into the game.
This is from the “Tao Teh King” (Tao Teh Ching),Archie Bahm translation.

LXXX
The ideal state is a small intimate community
Where all of the necessities of life are present in abundance.
There everyone is satisfied to live and die without looking
Around for greener pastures.
Even if they have cars or boats, they do not use them for
Traveling abroad.
Even if they have police and fortifications, these are never
Put to use.
Business transactions are simple enough to be calculated on
Ones fingers rather than requiring complicated bookkeeping.
The people are satisfied with their food,
Contented with their clothing
Comfortable in their dwellings,
And happy with their customs.
Even though neighboring communities are within sight,
And the crowing of the neighbor’s cocks and barking of
The neighbor’s dogs are within hearing,
They grow old and die without ever troubling themselves
To go outside of their own communities.

Me:
This, of course, goes against the fundamental imperatives of our social order. Discontent drives our system, and complexity is necessary to hide the simple truths of its stupidity from the people.

[Jean-Philippe]

I’m not sure I understand everything in your argument. However, I think that the problem would be better addressed from a political than an economic perspective. I don’t think needlessly complex economic theories are required. I think we need simple workable tools, but in order for these tools to work, we need competent law. I believe law and its practice are the problem, not economic theory.
I am a classical Taoist. Not the kind you find telling fortunes on the street corner, the old, old school, before magic got into the game.
This is from the “Tao Teh King” (Tao Teh Ching),Archie Bahm translation.

My point is that I don't think we can separate law and its practice from economic theory. On the contrary, I believe the latter must inform the other. It is only by interpreting correctly what's at play in economic transactions that one can devise and enforce proper regulations.
During the last 30 years, the belief was that markets are self-regulated and that therefore, no laws were required for them, or rather only a handful of them, loosely enforced were sufficient to provide a little extra-balance in a system that was anyway believed to balance itself quite satisfyingly.
Facts however, have proven adverse to this conception. Several fraudulent practices have come to light in the last 10 years, several of them having taken place in the most fluid (and supposedly most self-regulated) world of financial markets. It is now time to reconsider and question this belief at several levels:
First, some results exist from the 60s that demonstrated that unregulated markets, even under the best assumptions (about rational behavior of the actors), are inherently unstable and fall prey to speculation and bubbles, you can check the works of Mandelbrot if you are interested in the mathematical details, I succinctly discussed these issues in a few post on my blog (http://fractalfinance.blogspot.com/2009/02/flapping-butterflies-dont-make.html for example).
Secondly, the inherent instability and complexity of financial market provides a lot of leeway to swindlers of all kind, and no process are naturally in place to punish them in one way or another. Furthermore the very absence of these processes, natural or legal, is an encouragement to commit fraud.
Thirdly, the competition being very high between actors in the financial market, there is an incentive to commit fraud sinc those who don't will be punished immediately and automatically by the system, i.e. they will lose their shareholders, and therefore their capital.

Unless lawmakers start acknowledging this reality and examine it in detail, their lawmaking will be weak at best, and sometimes even counterproductive; a well-known example of this is the mark-to-market accounting practice, that originally empowered the market with a magical ability to determine the "fair value"(without even properly defining such a notion) of an asset or liability, this assumption led to Enron scandal. The modification proposed in FAS157 seems to solve this problem but only by asserting even more strongly the reliance into the magical power of the market, and that certainly contributed to the present crisis, by making financial market even more unstable that they already are. The result is now that the SEC has been empowered with the right to suspend mark-to-market practice as devided in FAS157.

Now, in relation with growth, I may be in some agreement with you, even though the DaoDeJing needs to be interpreted , there is certainly some wisdom in not focusing on growth alone. And that leads us back to China, and its possible contribution for the future (to which we may well add India, that also has some interesting ideas going in this direction, in Tagore for instance). China has always put a lot of emphasis on harmonious development, and Daoism certainly played a role in that, contrary to the West where growth , first politically and then economically has always been the focus of the rulers. I therefore believe that China (and India) may alter and complete the western civilisation in a positive sense, by promoting the idea that growth is not indeed a goal in itself, that before engaging in growth, it might be wise to ponder a little on the nature and long-term consequences of this growth.

[DubiousDan]

Jean-Philippe :

Now, in relation with growth, I may be in some agreement with you, even though the DaoDeJing needs to be interpreted , there is certainly some wisdom in not focusing on growth alone.

Me:
I think the chap that translated my little blurb does a pretty good job of interpreting the Tao Teh Ching. I have had that verified by at least one Chinese scholar of impeccable credentials and by a few other chaps who should have a little knowledge on the subject.

Regarding the rest of your post, you seem to be a little naive about the function of our system. It isn’t to spread prosperity across our country. It is to make the rich richer. If you will check the spread between the top and bottom in our country, you will find that that is well underway. You speak of some of these things as if they were failures. Some were. Enron only proved that our hog troughs have finite resources. Our last debacle however, may have made a few of the rich who were grossly in excess of reasonable hoggishness poorer, but by and large, the rich are doing quite nicely, thank you. If you will look at the stock market, every time the unemployment index goes up, so goes the stock market. When the dollar goes up, the market goes down. You can see how well the stock market is linked to the well-being of the average American. Nothing makes a company's stock go up like a massive layoff, at the bottom, of course.
You have to separate law from economic theory, because law is intended to mislead. A law sets out to do one thing while claiming to do another. The only theory that reasonable follows law is that of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Economic theory doesn’t deal with criminality, it deals with a world that doesn’t exist, a world where men are honest. Yes, there are certain aspects of economic theory which I believe are quite consistent, and as long as law is not involved, they are reliable and useful. However, when law enters the picture, you are lost. Law is created by government. The aim of government is to convince the many that the interest of the few is the interest of the many. In short, fraud.
You want to make honest law. Yes, you do. Unfortunately, you are not a politician, and politicians make law. Politicians are not at all interested in making honest law, they are interested in profit and reelection and neither of these will result from making honest law.

[Jean-Philippe]

I think the chap that translated my little blurb does a pretty good job of interpreting the Tao Teh Ching. I have had that verified by at least one Chinese scholar of impeccable credentials and by a few other chaps who should have a little knowledge on the subject.

I make a difference between translation and interpretation, even though any translation is necessarily an interpretation, one can interpret beyond the scope of pure translation.
Besides, this chapter does not present much difficulty to translate, even though two options of translation are usually considered, one which is military, and the other not, according to the Ma Wang Dui manuscripts (translated by Robert G. Henricks, dating from 2nd century BC), the military is likely the most relevant one, your version, most likely translated from a later version (from WangBi commentaries, dating from the 3rd century AD), chose the non-military one.
Anyway, in this case, I think it is important to remember when this text was composed, it was written during the warring states period, when unending wars between neighboring states were the worst plague for the people, it would be like having a philosophical text written by a french thinker during the 100 years war, despite all the interest of such a text, can we really assume its relevance is totally detached from the situation it was written in?
Especially in the view that MaWangDui version is the earliest one we have from this passage (if I am not mistaken), and that this version emphasizes a military interpretation, it seems more to condemn military imperialism than a general concept of growth, which is also more in adequation with the times it was written in. Is it therefore enough, or even justified, to merely adopt a non-military translation, and promote a negative judgment about growth in general?

Regarding the rest of your post, you seem to be a little naive about the function of our system. It isn’t to spread prosperity across our country. It is to make the rich richer. If you will check the spread between the top and bottom in our country, you will find that that is well underway. You speak of some of these things as if they were failures. Some were. Enron only proved that our hog troughs have finite resources. Our last debacle however, may have made a few of the rich who were grossly in excess of reasonable hoggishness poorer, but by and large, the rich are doing quite nicely, thank you. If you will look at the stock market, every time the unemployment index goes up, so goes the stock market. When the dollar goes up, the market goes down. You can see how well the stock market is linked to the well-being of the average American. Nothing makes a company's stock go up like a massive layoff, at the bottom, of course.
You have to separate law from economic theory, because law is intended to mislead. A law sets out to do one thing while claiming to do another. The only theory that reasonable follows law is that of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Economic theory doesn’t deal with criminality, it deals with a world that doesn’t exist, a world where men are honest. Yes, there are certain aspects of economic theory which I believe are quite consistent, and as long as law is not involved, they are reliable and useful. However, when law enters the picture, you are lost. Law is created by government. The aim of government is to convince the many that the interest of the few is the interest of the many. In short, fraud.
You want to make honest law. Yes, you do. Unfortunately, you are not a politician, and politicians make law. Politicians are not at all interested in making honest law, they are interested in profit and reelection and neither of these will result from making honest law.

I don't understand what you saw as naive in my previous comment, I never denied the hoggishness of anybody. Hoggishness does exist and will still exist for a long time, you can't suppress it, you can only limit its effects, but for that, you have to understand the processes at play in the activity you wish to regulate about, and only economic theory (a proper one) can tell you that.
My point is that the stock market in itself is not the problem, and even though it may have been devised by the rich and for the rich, the society at large can still confiscate it from them and regulate it in order to serve the general interest.
As for the politicians, bad ones exist and are many, but good ones also exist, it's a constant struggle with ups and downs, I believe we are just emerging from a 30 years downfall, so things may seem very negative, I also believe however that things start to reverse, albeit slowly.

[DubiousDan]

Jean-Philips:

I make a difference between translation and interpretation, even though any translation is necessarily an interpretation, one can interpret beyond the scope of pure translation.
Besides, this chapter does not present much difficulty to translate, even though two options of translation are usually considered, one which is military, and the other not, according to the Ma Wang Dui manuscripts (translated by Robert G. Henricks, dating from 2nd century BC), the military is likely the most relevant one, your version, most likely translated from a later version (from WangBi commentaries, dating from the 3rd century AD), chose the non-military one.
Anyway, in this case, I think it is important to remember when this text was composed, it was written during the warring states period, when unending wars between neighboring states were the worst plague for the people, it would be like having a philosophical text written by a french thinker during the 100 years war, despite all the interest of such a text, can we really assume its relevance is totally detached from the situation it was written in?
Especially in the view that MaWangDui version is the earliest one we have from this passage (if I am not mistaken), and that this version emphasizes a military interpretation, it seems more to condemn military imperialism than a general concept of growth, which is also more in adequation with the times it was written in. Is it therefore enough, or even justified, to merely adopt a non-military translation, and promote a negative judgment about growth in general?

Me:
I have been amiss in my duties. I have been aware of Henrick’s book for some time, but for one reason or another, I’ve put off buying it. The order goes in today. I will withhold judgment until I have read it. I was not aware that it changed the fundamental nature of Taoism. If I had known that, I would have ordered it sooner. What you have said goes against not only the Tao Teh Ching but Chuang T’zu and Lieh T’zu as well. I have read at least ten versions of the Tao Teh Ching, and in all cases verse 80 was substantially the same as in Bahm’s translation. However, until I have read Henrick’s, I will withhold judgment. My understanding was that Henrick’s version was based on an incomplete version of the Tao Teh Ching which may or may not have been the ancestral version. However, my understanding has been in error before. I shall read the book and get back with you. Actually, I am thankful to you for getting me to buy the book, I should have done it when I first heard about. No, come to think of it, I don’t think the paperback was out then. It seems that you and I have widely differing understanding of the meaning of the Tao Teh Ching. If Henrick’s book confirms my error, I shall be in your debt.

Jean-Philippe :

I don't understand what you saw as naive in my previous comment, I never denied the hoggishness of anybody. Hoggishness does exist and will still exist for a long time, you can't suppress it, you can only limit its effects, but for that, you have to understand the processes at play in the activity you wish to regulate about, and only economic theory (a proper one) can tell you that.
My point is that the stock market in itself is not the problem, and even though it may have been devised by the rich and for the rich, the society at large can still confiscate it from them and regulate it in order to serve the general interest.
As for the politicians, bad ones exist and are many, but good ones also exist, it's a constant struggle with ups and downs, I believe we are just emerging from a 30 years downfall, so things may seem very negative, I also believe however that things start to reverse, albeit slowly.

Me:
Your naiveté is your inability to comprehend the nature of the world. I have been a little hasty in judging the extant of your knowledge in the past. However, knowledge and understanding are two different things. I don’t know your age, but I was born in 1935. I have held many beliefs in my lifetime. Experience has led me to reject beliefs and form new ones many times in my lifetime. My understanding goes to the fundamental nature of Human social orders, to civilization itself. The function of civilization, all civilizations, no matter what their ideology, is to take from the Harvester and give to the Elites. All ideologies are merely rationales for this. In the past, religion held the primary role. Today, more and more, it is economic ideology.
Once you understand this, then everything else becomes clearer.
When you understand that all civilized social orders operate for the benefit of the Elites, then you approach reality. Your theories have substance. As long as they do not recognize this fundamental reality, they are in error.
Yes, competent Elites benefit by managing their harvesters better. A good farmer cares for his livestock. However, the care that the steer receives is only there to increase the benefit from his slaughter. Yet, most domesticated animals prefer domestication, and once separated from it, will try to regain it. Civilized man is domesticated man.

[Jean-Philippe]

I have been amiss in my duties. I have been aware of Henrick’s book for some time, but for one reason or another, I’ve put off buying it. The order goes in today. I will withhold judgment until I have read it. I was not aware that it changed the fundamental nature of Taoism. If I had known that, I would have ordered it sooner. What you have said goes against not only the Tao Teh Ching but Chuang T’zu and Lieh T’zu as well. I have read at least ten versions of the Tao Teh Ching, and in all cases verse 80 was substantially the same as in Bahm’s translation. However, until I have read Henrick’s, I will withhold judgment. My understanding was that Henrick’s version was based on an incomplete version of the Tao Teh Ching which may or may not have been the ancestral version. However, my understanding has been in error before. I shall read the book and get back with you. Actually, I am thankful to you for getting me to buy the book, I should have done it when I first heard about. No, come to think of it, I don’t think the paperback was out then. It seems that you and I have widely differing understanding of the meaning of the Tao Teh Ching. If Henrick’s book confirms my error, I shall be in your debt.

First of all, no, what I wrote is not going against Zhuang Zi or Lie Zi, because I have only been talking of the chapter 80 of the DaoDeJing, which, until further information, was not written by Zhuang Zi or Lie YuKou. So you again seem to read much more than what I said in my writing.
As for the DaoDeJing, I don't think your understanding of it is lacking as a whole, I am actually pleasantly surprised that you interpret it (as far as I can judge) as a political treatise rather than a metaphysical one, as is often done, and I totally agree with you on this interpretation, and Henricks version will certainly comfort you in this attitude.
With regard to a more detailed interpretation however, I think it is important to consider the time at which it was written. Both Lao Zi and Confucius (the latter more explicitely than the former) do relate to a lost ideal age which was the Zhou Dynasty, we however know that the chinese society under the Zhou rule was a very strict style of feudal system (usually acknowledged as FengJian system). Lao Zi recommendations do therefore apply to this kind of system and look at it as a lost age of peace to which we should return, since he's writing at a time of unending wars, which indeed is the worst of times (and I'll refrain to cite Dickens here, but it may be appropriate to acknowledge, that despite extreme violence, those great shift in human history somehow improve the living of the most oppressed, but more on that below).
So I don't think we have a "widely differing understanding of the meaning of the Tao Teh Ching", as you put it, I believe our understanding may actually be pretty close, but we may differ on the relevance of this understanding for our world, that is, on the way to interpret it in order to conceive conclusions applicable to our world.

Your naiveté is your inability to comprehend the nature of the world. I have been a little hasty in judging the extant of your knowledge in the past. However, knowledge and understanding are two different things. I don’t know your age, but I was born in 1935. I have held many beliefs in my lifetime. Experience has led me to reject beliefs and form new ones many times in my lifetime. My understanding goes to the fundamental nature of Human social orders, to civilization itself. The function of civilization, all civilizations, no matter what their ideology, is to take from the Harvester and give to the Elites. All ideologies are merely rationales for this. In the past, religion held the primary role. Today, more and more, it is economic ideology.
Once you understand this, then everything else becomes clearer.
When you understand that all civilized social orders operate for the benefit of the Elites, then you approach reality. Your theories have substance. As long as they do not recognize this fundamental reality, they are in error.
Yes, competent Elites benefit by managing their harvesters better. A good farmer cares for his livestock. However, the care that the steer receives is only there to increase the benefit from his slaughter. Yet, most domesticated animals prefer domestication, and once separated from it, will try to regain it. Civilized man is domesticated man.

Again, I really think you are misunderstanding my position, it might be my fault, english is not my mother tongue. Anyway, I certainly agree to say that domination relationship are at the heart of civilization, I may not go as far as to say that it is the "function" of civilization (because to make such a generalization, a few more discussion is needed), but historically, it certainly is the case that such relationships have been fundamental to social order and still are.
That being said, not all domination relationship are equivalent, I make a difference between a slave system, a feudal system, or an employee system (which would be the current system, if you have a better word, I am Ok with it). I also make a difference between a religious order and an order derived from an economic ideology, even though in some cases, they tend to behave alike. That the elites endeavor to devise and to operate the social system for their benefit is obvious, but the relationship between the Elites and the Harvesters (to borrow your terminology) is not constant in history, it evolves, there is a struggle going on, some Harvesters become Elites and conversely, some Elites become Harvesters, some orders are more or less oppressive, and we cannot ignore that today's individuals, despite all their alienations (to materialism, ideologies,...) are much more able to get emancipated than the people living in primal societies, whose lives were strictly regulated by taboos, and fears of the unknown. This is not to deny that our societies are still very much imbued with irrational fears, hierarchised by prejudices, and tightly controlled by the most powerful people, but these problems are today in the open, many of us have access to contradicting ideologies, there is no more one single voice emanating from a single shaman, we can debate these matters, we can act against domination at our own level, and beyond that.
To come back to the matter at hand however, to act efficiently against the structures of domination that clearly exist in our world, a pre-condition is to understand how these structures work, and how we may turn them against the Elites.

[DubiousDan]

Jean-Philippe:

With regard to a more detailed interpretation however, I think it is important to consider the time at which it was written. Both Lao Zi and Confucius (the latter more explicitely than the former) do relate to a lost ideal age which was the Zhou Dynasty, we however know that the chinese society under the Zhou rule was a very strict style of feudal system (usually acknowledged as FengJian system). Lao Zi recommendations do therefore apply to this kind of system and look at it as a lost age of peace to which we should return, since he's writing at a time of unending wars, which indeed is the worst of times (and I'll refrain to cite Dickens here, but it may be appropriate to acknowledge, that despite extreme violence, those great shift in human history somehow improve the living of the most oppressed, but more on that below).
So I don't think we have a "widely differing understanding of the meaning of the Tao Teh Ching", as you put it, I believe our understanding may actually be pretty close, but we may differ on the relevance of this understanding for our world, that is, on the way to interpret it in order to conceive conclusions applicable to our world.

Me:
We have a problem here. You are apparently using a different dynastic description than is common in the US. Here, the period between the beginning of the Chou Dynasty and the Chin Dynasty is called the Chou Dynasty. The Warring States period is held as part of the Chow Dynasty except for the final 34 years. Reference the Encyclopedia Britannica, CD Version, year 1999.
Confucius and the Lao T’zu of legend were not part of the Warring State period 474 –221 BC. They preceded it. That didn’t mean that the Tao Teh Ching wasn’t written then, the book could have been finished during the Han Dynasty. However, I believer you are greatly overstating the violence of the Warring States period. It was one of China’s golden ages. Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Europe was hardly peaceful, and it produced a few philosophers as did Classical Greece.
While Confucius admired the Duke of Chou, the empire that served as his example was that of Huang-Ti, the Yellow Emperor. This was a legendary empire of around 2700 BC. There is no actual record of such an Empire. This was the one that Lao T’zu referred to as well. However, in a sense Lao T’zu was reasonably correct. The attributes that he assigned to the Ancients were those that modern archaeology and anthropology are beginning to assign to pre-civilized man.
We have a widely differing idea of the Tao Teh Ching. Chapter 80 does not stand alone. Taoism is nonlinear. Zen Buddhism evolved from a mixture of Taoism and Buddhism. The Zen koan was a method to break free of linear thought and reach the intuitive level. There are not only a lot of translations of the Tao Teh Ching in English, there are about 80 in Chinese. Up to now, there is no such thing as the true Tao Teh Ching. However, of the many in English, every one is different. Much more different then say the works of Sun T’zu. That is because in Taoism, words are only there to point to meaning. You don’t read the Tao Teh Ching once. My third copy of Bahm’s translation is in tatters. To say that Chapter 80 of the Tao Teh Ching doesn’t relate to Chuang T’zu and Lieh T’zu, as well as Su Tong-P’o and other is not to understand Taoism. There is a fundamental underlying understanding in Taoism that cannot really be spoken, but it must be there to understand the Texts of Taoism. If that underlying understanding is in error, then nothing makes sense.
The reason that all translations are different than just the fact that some just don’t get it, is that words and expressions mean different things to different people. A sentence that would be true if one person spoke it would be untrue if another person spoke it.

Jean-Philippe :

That the elites endeavor to devise and to operate the social system for their benefit is obvious, but the relationship between the Elites and the Harvesters (to borrow your terminology) is not constant in history, it evolves, there is a struggle going on, some Harvesters become Elites and conversely, some Elites become Harvesters, some orders are more or less oppressive, and we cannot ignore that today's individuals, despite all their alienations (to materialism, ideologies,...) are much more able to get emancipated than the people living in primal societies, whose lives were strictly regulated by taboos, and fears of the unknown. This is not to deny that our societies are still very much imbued with irrational fears, hierarchised by prejudices, and tightly controlled by the most powerful people, but these problems are today in the open, many of us have access to contradicting ideologies, there is no more one single voice emanating from a single shaman, we can debate these matters, we can act against domination at our own level, and beyond that.
To come back to the matter at hand however, to act efficiently against the structures of domination that clearly exist in our world, a pre-condition is to understand how these structures work, and how we may turn them against the Elites.

Me:
I am a paradigm away from you on this point. I look at social orders completely different than you do. Much of Newtonian physics is the same as Relativity, and yet, their Universes are completely different.
All civilized social orders consist of Elites and Harvesters, all. To end Elite domination, you must reject civilization. You can throw off one set of Elites, but you will then install another set of Elites as long as civilization remains.

By the way, your anthropology is completely out of date.

[Jean-Philippe]

We have a problem here. You are apparently using a different dynastic description than is common in the US. Here, the period between the beginning of the Chou Dynasty and the Chin Dynasty is called the Chou Dynasty. The Warring States period is held as part of the Chow Dynasty except for the final 34 years. Reference the Encyclopedia Britannica, CD Version, year 1999.

Very simply, I use the pinyin system (which, by the way, is not a language but a romanization system) in all the chinese names I employ, except for some obvious ones, such as Confucius.

Confucius and the Lao T’zu of legend were not part of the Warring State period 474 –221 BC. They preceded it. That didn’t mean that the Tao Teh Ching wasn’t written then, the book could have been finished during the Han Dynasty. However, I believer you are greatly overstating the violence of the Warring States period

I am obviously considering the time of writing of the DaoDeJing, and especially of the chapter 80, and to me, it is likely that this chapter must be understood in the context of the Warring States period, as it clearly addresses a problematic of this period.
And I indeed think I overstated the violence of this period, when I compared it to the 100 years war, it definitively was more livable than this latter, my aim was to insist of the need to consider the historical circumstances in which the DaoDeJing was composed, as I often find this context is ignored.

To say that Chapter 80 of the Tao Teh Ching doesn’t relate to Chuang T’zu and Lieh T’zu, as well as Su Tong-P’o and other is not to understand Taoism.

Good, because I never stated such a thing, I merely said that I was analysing Chapter 80, and that, as far as I know, the authors of the ZhuangZi and the LieZi not being the authors of this chapter, this one did not have to agree with any of these authors' other works, now we can certainly relate this chapter to some ideas coming from other Daoist works, but not a priori. The first stage of analysis is to look at the original records we have from this text, and figure out a meaning that makes sense, and I place myself at this stage so far, in a second stage, we may consider other texts from Daoism and see how this supposed meaning relates to them, if there is obvious contradiction we have a problem, and we may look at whether another translation is possible (still in accordance with the original sources). All that has hardly anything to see with understanding Daoism as a whole which is an aggregate philosophy of texts difficult to translate, and in which may reside some contradictions, and one may even consider that the various schools of thought that derived from these original texts, during the chinese history, illustrate somehow some of these contradictions (that is actually true of all schools of thought that find their origin in so remote a time, either in the East or in the West).
As you seem to know (or so I assume) there is not one right Daoism, that excludes all the others, the important question is to analyse whether an understanding of Daoism is adequate with the most recent findings in archeology and philology, before attempting any comparison with other Daoist authors.

All civilized social orders consist of Elites and Harvesters, all. To end Elite domination, you must reject civilization. You can throw off one set of Elites, but you will then install another set of Elites as long as civilization remains.

Well, yes, you already said that, and I think I understand it the first time. My point is not to say you are fundamentally wrong, but merely that, even assuming that the structure of social orders is one that implies a set of rulers and a set of ruled, not all social orders are equivalent, they differ in some important regards as to the relationships between these two sets, and that's what makes some social orders more desirable, either in terms of stability or general happiness of its members.

By the way, your anthropology is completely out of date.

Well, thanks for stating so clearly and decisively your opinion about my anthropology knowledge, a few messages ago, I was an american capitalist ignorant of chinese history, it's always comforting to be so well-understood.
And despite your thorough knowledge of the DaoDeJing, maybe you'd profit from reflecting a little on the chapter 49, and applying it to your debating style:
The sage has no invariable mind of his own; he makes the mind of the people his mind.
To those who are good (to me), I am good; and to those who are not good (to me), I am also good; - and thus (all) get to be good. To those who are sincere (with me), I am sincere; and to those who are not sincere (with me), I am also sincere; - and thus (all) get to be sincere.
The sage has in the world an appearance of indecision, and keeps his mind in a state of indifference to all. The people all keep their eyes and ears directed to him, and he deals with them all as his children.
This is a translation I found here, but the chinese does not differ much from the version from MaWangDui and Henricks translation is also pretty close.

[DubiousDan]

Jean-Philippe :

Very simply, I use the pinyin system (which, by the way, is not a language but a romanization system) in all the chinese names I employ, except for some obvious ones, such as Confucius.

Me:
Pinyin is being treated like a language by Americans in China. It seems a bit like the Japanese Hiragana in application. The fact that it uses Latin letters make it even more useful. When I was studying Chinese, Pinyin would have been a God send. You are technically correct however.
However, my problems with your statements had nothing to do with your use of Pinyin. Nevertheless my message seems to have reached you, so I will let it be. You are a fast learner.

Jean-Philippe:

All that has hardly anything to see with understanding Daoism as a whole which is an aggregate philosophy of texts difficult to translate, and in which may reside some contradictions, and one may even consider that the various schools of thought that derived from these original texts, during the chinese history, illustrate somehow some of these contradictions (that is actually true of all schools of thought that find their origin in so remote a time, either in the East or in the West).
As you seem to know (or so I assume) there is not one right Daoism, that excludes all the others, the important question is to analyse whether an understanding of Daoism is adequate with the most recent findings in archeology and philology, before attempting any comparison with other Daoist authors.

Me:
There is one true Tao, but it is beyond Human understanding. It’s value is analogous to truth, to serve as a vector for improvement
Individuals, groups, nations, all have their Taos and even these are in the final analysis beyond human comprehension. However, Teh is our attempt to understand these Taos in relation to the world that we live in. This is of course, my understanding, it is not the truth. It is not even my understanding, it is that part of my understanding that I can verbalize.
However, your comments on archeology and philology are not consistent with my understanding. As I said before, Taoism is nonlinear.

Jean-Philippe :

Well, yes, you already said that, and I think I understand it the first time. My point is not to say you are fundamentally wrong, but merely that, even assuming that the structure of social orders is one that implies a set of rulers and a set of ruled, not all social orders are equivalent, they differ in some important regards as to the relationships between these two sets, and that's what makes some social orders more desirable, either in terms of stability or general happiness of its members.

Me:
I still don’t believe you understand. You probably never will, but then, again, you might.

Jean-Philippe :

Well, thanks for stating so clearly and decisively your opinion about my anthropology knowledge, a few messages ago, I was an american capitalist ignorant of chinese history, it's always comforting to be so well-understood.
And despite your thorough knowledge of the DaoDeJing, maybe you'd profit from reflecting a little on the chapter 49, and applying it to your debating style:

Me:
You may not be an American capitalist, but my opinion of your knowledge of Chinese history has not changed much. By the way, I consider myself ignorant of Chinese history. However, there are different degrees of ignorance.
I first reflected on chapter 49 of the Tao Teh Ching about half a century ago. I read the words and came to a similar conclusion to the one you seem to have reached. Unfortunately I was not familiar with Chuang T’zu at that time. I tried to emulate the perceived message, and discovered problems. I eventually worked out an understanding, but it was incomplete until I read Chuang T’zu. It probably is still incomplete but it has advanced somewhat.

As for your understanding of anthropology, perhaps I misunderstood you, but if you are saying that before civilization people lived lives which were strictly regulated by taboos and fears of the unknown. If you meant their lives were more stressful than those of people today, that is not quite the opinion of modern anthropology. If you meant something different, I apologize.

There is an article on a hunter gatherer society in the National Geographic in the December 2009 edition. This is a hunter gatherer society which has coexisted with civilization for millennia, so it is hardly the same as those that came before. Still, I think the article is instructive. And no, this is not the extant of my knowledge on the subject.